Real Estate/Environmental

Where a plaintiff has filed a mandamus action claiming that a plan submitted to the Acushnet Planning Board has been constructively approved by the board’s failure to act on the plan within 21 days of its submission, the plaintiff’s assertion must be rejected inasmuch as she has failed to timely file the requisite notice with the town clerk as mandated by G.L.c. 41, §81T.

Where the Truro board of appeals has found that the marketing and renting of the plaintiffs’ locus for wedding receptions is disallowed, that decision was not an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that the site is in a residential district.

Where a judge of the Housing Court set aside the defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of Phillipston’s denial of the plaintiff's application for a variance and ordered that the variance be granted, the judge’s decision did not set forth findings that establish either uniqueness or a hardship, and therefore the judgment must be reversed.

Where plaintiffs have challenged a decision by the Boston Redevelopment Authority approving the defendants’ proposal to develop 461 Walnut Avenue in Jamaica Plain into a mixed use facility providing low-income housing to and medical treatment facilities for homeless individuals, the challenge must be rejected because (1) the plaintiffs lack standing, (2) the fact that the property is surrounded by a neighborhood that is described by its residents as a “vibrant and soundly growing” area did not preclude the BRA from determining that the project site itself is decadent under G.L.c. 121A, §1, and (3) substantial evidence supports the BRA’s findings that the project constitutes a public good and benefit, would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Boston Zoning Code and does not conflict with Boston’s Master Plan.

Where a plaintiff insurance company has moved for summary judgment declaring that there is no coverage available to the defendants under a homeowners insurance policy with respect to water damage at the defendants’ home, there are genuine issues as to material facts with respect to the claimed water damage that prevent the entry of summary judgment.

An insurance carrier that hired outside counsel to handle a subrogation claim against a heating-oil company was not liable for the attorney’s misrepresentations to the policyholder that he also had been hired to handle her individual claims against the oil ...

Where homeowners have sought insurance benefits for damage caused by leaking oil, summary judgment is inappropriate in that a material issue exists regarding whether the damages was caused by vandalism.

Where the plaintiffs, who own a home within the community of the defendant association, sought a declaration that they are not required to pay semiannual assessments to the association, a declaratory judgment for the association must be affirmed but modified, as (1) the judge did not err in deciding that the association could enforce its assessments against the plaintiffs as an equitable servitude that burdened their land but (2) payment of the assessments to the association may be compelled against the plaintiffs only as a charge against their property and not as a personal obligation.